S. Sangar vs Thiru. V.T. Kandasamy, District Forest Officer and Thiru. C. Raja, Assistant Conservator of Forests Enquiry Officer, Kodaikanal Division

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Ms. P.T. Asha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Kirubanandan, the

learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents 1 and 2 for committing contempt of Court by wilful disobedience of the order

passed by this Court, on 25.08.2004, in W.P. No. 24021 of 2004.

It is submitted by the petitioner that he was selected for appointment to the post of Forest Watcher in the year 1976. He was promoted to the

post of Forest Guard in the year 1992. The petitioner ought to have been included in the panel for promotion to the post of Forester for the year

2002. It has also been submitted that on the basis of a letter written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

Dindigul, dated 14.10.2003, addressed to the Forest Range Officer, a charge sheet, dated 02.01.2004, had been issued against the petitioner,

wherein it had been stated that the petitioner had permitted two lorries through the Chidambaram Forest Inspection Check Post carrying silver oak

trees, without the necessary permission and that he had permitted another lorry carrying oak trees and other prohibited varieties of trees through

the Chidambaram Check Post without taking appropriate action. By a representation, dated 2.9.2004, the petitioner had demanded for the perusal

of certain documents, since the District Forest Officer had not permitted the petitioner to go through the required documents. The second

respondent had issued an order, dated 22.07.2004, directing the District Forest Officer to supply the documents demanded by the petitioner and

which were relevant to the charges. Inspite of the said order, the District Forest Officer had not permitted the petitioner to peruse the documents.

Instead, he had directed the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry and to give a report thereon. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a

writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 24021 of 2004. This Court had passed an order, on 25.08.2004. Paragraph-4 of the order, reads as

follows:

Having regard to the contents of the letter dated 22.07.2004 of the second respondent, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as

hereunder:

The third respondent is directed to comply with the directions in the letter dated 22.07.2004 addressed to him by the second respondent within 15

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; on receipt of the records, which the petitioner wants and as indicated in the letter dated

22.7.2004, the petitioner shall participate in the enquiry proceedings before the Assistant Conservator of Forests and the Enquiry Officer is

directed to complete the proceedings in accordance with law and take a decision thereon, in any event, not later than 30.11.2004.

In spite of the order passed by this Court, on 25.08.2004, having been communicated to the respondents, the Assistant Conservator of Forests,

the second respondent in the present petition had not chosen to show all the documents as mentioned in the letter of the Conservator of Forests,

dated 22.07.2004. Without the documents being shown to the petitioner he was asked to attend the enquiry. While so, the enquiry proceedings

were conducted and in the Enquiry Report it was held that both the charges made against the petitioner was proved. Based on the Enquiry Report,

the District Forest Officer had asked the petitioner to show cause as to why final orders should not be passed based on the Enquiry Officer''s

report. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, he had tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in complying with the directions

issued by this Court, by its order, dated 25.08.2004, madein W.P. No. 24021 of 2004, stating that the delay caused was neither wilful nor

wanton. It has been further stated that based on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, dated

14.10.2003, disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner, under Rules 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and

Appeal) Rules, on 2.1.2004. Along with the charge sheet, statements of witnesses were annexed and it was acknowledged by the petitioner, on

08.01.2004. In spite of receiving the documents, the petitioner did not submit the questionnaire form which had been sent along with the charge

sheet. The Conservator of Forests, Dindigul Circle, had appointed C. Raja, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Kodaikanal Division, as an Enquiry

Officer to conduct the enquiry, vide his proceedings C. No. 2393/04/E2, dated 17.03.2004. The petitioner had made a request for the perusal of

certain records. Based on the request, he was permitted to peruse the records, vide proceedings in C. No. 7296/2003/E2, dated 21.05.2004.

Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared before the Superintendent at the office of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul Division, and he had perused

the relevant records between 28.06.2004 to 30.06.2004. Even though the petitioner had perused the relevant records as required by him, he has

refused to acknowledge the same.

In the writ petition, W.P. No. 24021 of 2004, an order was passed by this Court, on 25.08.2004, directing the respondents therein to finalise

the disciplinary proceedings on or before, 30.11.2004 and the first respondent in the present petition was directed to comply with the directions

issued by the Conservator of Forests, by an order, dated 22.07.2004. The order of the High Court, dated 25.08.2004, had been received by the

first respondent, on 07.09.2004 by which time the entire records were sent to the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry

Officer was requested to permit the petitioner to peruse the relevant documents. Though copies of the basic documents, based on which the

charges were framed had been given to the petitioner and having acknowledged the same, on 08.01.2004, he had been asking for more

documents and for more time. Even the additional documents which the petitioner had wanted to peruse, were made available, vide proceedings in

C. No. 6283/04/E1, dated 13.10.2004, issued by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had perused the records in the office of the Enquiry Officer,

on 08.11.2004 and 09.11.2004. Since the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry in spite of the Enquiry Officer fixing the date of the

enquiry, as 22.11.2004, vide his proceedings C. No. 8283/04/E1, dated 18.11.2004, the petitioner had been set exparte. Having no other option,

the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry, on 22.11.2004, and completed the same as directed by this Court. The Enquiry Officer''s

Report had been received in the office of the first respondent, on 29.11.2004 and the same had been communicated to the petitioner for offering

the final explanation. In spite of asking for time till 20.12.2004 for submitting his explanation, the petitioner had filed the present contempt petition

on 07.12.2004. It has been further stated by the first respondent that after the petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 20.12.2004, final orders

are yet to be passed. Thus, the respondent had not committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on

25.08.2004, in W.P. No. 24021 of 2004.

In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent were incorrect and

false. Out of the 20 documents required by the petitioner, documents 5 to 20 of the list of the documents, described in the reply affidavit, were not

given to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had permitted the petitioner to peruse only seven documents and even out of those seven documents,

the Enquiry Officer had stated that the petitioner could peruse only those documents which pertains to 14.10.2003. In such circumstances, the first

respondent had committed contempt of Court by their refusal to comply with the directions issued by this Court, on 25.08.2004, in W.P. No.

24021 of 2004.

Based on the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents it is clear that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to peruse the relevant records necessary to defend himself against the

charges framed against him. It is also seen that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Having

completed the enquiry, on 22.11.2004, the enquiry officer had submitted a report, on 29.11.2004, in the office of the first respondent. The said

report had been communicated to the petitioner on 29.11.2004 itself for offering his final explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner had requested time

till 20.12.2004 to submit his explanation. In stead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner had filed the present contempt petition, on

7.12.2004.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not done anything in wilful disobedience of the order

passed by this Court, on 25.08.2004 in W.P. No. 24021 of 2004, to punish the respondents for contempt of Court as prayed for in the contempt

petition. However, it is observed that if and when final orders are passed, based on the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, it would be open

to him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. No

costs.